GSL vs. no GSL Forked From: Where are all of the campaign settings?

[CaptainChaos]

Given that GR are going to keep their 3.5 material on sale as 3rd Era and that presumably includes the former d20-branded supplement to Freeport, I guess they couldn't do that and produce a GSL 4e supplement under the terms of the GSL requiring you ditch forever all OGL support for the same product line. So they'd have to go outside the GSL if there's to be 4e Freeport and them keep their 3.5/OGL support in place (and, for that matter, True20, because that's OGL too, right?).

As I understand it, you are correct. GR's only announced 4E product is an update of their Character Record Folio and that's using the OGL not the GSL. Maybe they'll do a 4E Freeport Companion if the revised GSL ever happens. Me, I'm glad I play True20. I got my Freeport Companion over a year ago.

 

[Treebore]

The best thing to do is spend an hour or so reading over US Copyright law.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States

That way you have a fundamental idea of what is and is not possible and you can ask any IP attorney you consult intelligent questions. Using less time and therefore saving you lawyers fees.

 

[Treebore]

BTW, IAW the documentation located at the site I previously liinked, the following is NOT copyrightable:

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for
federal copyright protection. These include among others:
• Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of
expression (for example, choreographic works that have
not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches
or performances that have not been written or recorded)
• Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols
or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients
or contents
• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a
description, explanation, or illustration
• Works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship (for
example: standard calendars, height and weight charts,
tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from
public documents or other common sources)

Bolding is mine. So the GSL may help protect you, but it also gives WOTC far more control and rights than they would have under just copyright protection. Since the GSL would also give them control over you and use of their "procedures, Systems, concepts, processes, etc... for playing D&D. Protection they do not have under copyright.

They definitely don't have it patented either.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

The things I want to include are:
Demons (As far as I know this is still not allowed)

Succubus, or succubi

Stat blocks in my book of existing monsters (I like the currant design of adventure paths, and want to use it)

The assurance that if I make somthing up like for instance a brand new monster (a new dragon perhaps) that I will get full credit for it, even if WoTC conveniently "Had a similar idea in the works" and takes full credit for the idea.

The ability to write my adventure how I want to, not how Wizards dictates I should. (Slightly mature themes, think gothic horror, not porn, but still outside the "PG" rating).

I have this deep burning hatred of censorship. If you can't show a boob, don't even hint toward naked boob (Looking at you WoTC artists) But I don't want my lisence taken away if one of my artists draws a nipple. (I know the BoEF wrecked this one for me, but it still gets me upset).

I think thats about all the things stopping me from using the GSL.

Again, still haven't slept, sorry if this is just random word-vomit.

Edit: at times like these I wish Rouse would show up and just clarify things... Or maybe just up and say "you know, that isn't what we meant... we wont sue you for putting X in your published campaign" or somthing.

 

[S'mon]

Speaking as an IP lecturer, for most people I'd say you're best off using the d20 OGL for 4e material, the way the retro clones do for 1e, BX, OD&D etc. If your setting is pretty much generic fantasy then the Kalmar no-license approach may be better, with minimal 4e-compatible stats.

 

[aboyd]

I'm surprised nobody has summarized the way US copyright protects game publishers/developers, but since nobody has, I will. Basically, you cannot copyright numbers. You cannot copyright stats. You cannot copyright game mechanics (such as "roll a 20 sided die"). You CAN copyright creative stuff -- spell descriptions, flavor text, feat descriptions, class overviews, artwork, media/audio/video, etc.

What this means is that you can probably include compatible stat blocks (in your own format because they might even claim the layout of their stat blocks as a creative expression that is copyrighted), but you sure as hell better not include the text describing a feat. Don't dare simulate the 4th edition power cards by using their descriptive text. If you completely rewrite a description, you'd better double-check to make sure not a single phrase is a copy or even near-copy of anything in the official copyrighted materials.

To those of us who are not intellectual property lawyers, this pretty much means either following Kenzer's lead to the letter and not straying at all from the formula used, or else just going edition-neutral (Freeport).

Still, the good news is that copyright law will afford you some exceptions. The math behind a game is pretty much not copyrightable. And that allows you to have a minimum of compatibility.

 

[S'mon]

What this means is that you can probably include compatible stat blocks (in your own format because they might even claim the layout of their stat blocks as a creative expression that is copyrighted), but you sure as hell better not include the text describing a feat.

Yes, that's right. A complex stat block format like 3e or 4e monsters have may conceivably have copyright protection, so it's better to use your own format, and better to use minimal stats.

What the no-license route does do is give you greater space to claim compatibility - trade mark law is more about not confusing the customer, so make sure your work is clearly non-authorised and there should not be a problem* with indicating what game systems your work is intended for.

*In the sense that there would be no legal case against you. You can still face groundless threats, as I hear has happened in some cases.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Speaking as an IP lecturer, for most people I'd say you're best off using the d20 OGL for 4e material, the way the retro clones do for 1e, BX, OD&D etc. If your setting is pretty much generic fantasy then the Kalmar no-license approach may be better, with minimal 4e-compatible stats.

I don't know what the Kalmar aproach is. do you have a link to open or free examples?

 

[S'mon]

No, but as I understand it Kalamar uses no license, OGL or GSL, and sticks with what's clearly allowed under US copyright and TM law.

 

[Treebore]

No, but as I understand it Kalamar uses no license, OGL or GSL, and sticks with what's clearly allowed under US copyright and TM law.

Yep. Plus what they do would shock old posters about how restricting copyright law is. Well, actually is not. All the OGL did was allow open and obvious compatibility occur, since you could use WOTC labels. As the Kalamar product shows, copyright is not a straight jacket to straight compatibility.

Plus Kenzer keeps all rights to their ideas by not signing on to the GSL, and makes WOTC have to stay on their toes to make sure they don't copy any 3rd party publisher who gets certain ideas into print first.

Fortunately WOTC was smart enough to keep possible competition "frozen"
so WOTC has a nice head start on getting things published first.

Using the OGL to print 4E compatible products is probably the smartest/safest way to go. However, Kenzer, owned by an IP lawyer, who successfully sued WOTC over IP, decided just going old school with no license was the best way for him to go.

Go with what you feel safest with is the bottom line.